Next Article in Journal
Not All Field Margins Are Equally Useful: Effects of the Vegetation Structure of Margins on Cereal Aphids and Their Natural Enemies
Next Article in Special Issue
Elongases of Long-Chain Fatty Acids ELO2 and ELO9 Are Involved in Cuticle Formation and Function in Fecundity in the Yellow Fever Mosquito, Aedes aegypti
Previous Article in Journal
Two Alimentary Canal Proteins, Fo-GN and Fo-Cyp1, Act in Western Flower Thrips, Frankliniella occidentalis TSWV Infection
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Insects
Volume 14
Issue 2
10.3390/insects14020155
insects-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Synergistic Behavioral Response Effect of Mixtures of Andrographis paniculata, Cananga odorata, and Vetiveria zizanioides against Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae)

by
Amonrat Panthawong
1,
Jirod Nararak
1,
Pairpailin Jhaiaun
1,
Chutipong Sukkanon
2,3 and
Theeraphap Chareonviriyaphap
1,4,*
1
Department of Entomology, Faculty of Agriculture, Kasetsart University, Bangkok 10900, Thailand
2
Department of Medical Technology, School of Allied Health Sciences, Walailak University, Nakhon Si Thammarat 80160, Thailand
3
Excellent Center for Dengue and Community Public Health (EC for DACH), Walailak University, Nakhon Si Thammarat 80160, Thailand
4
Royal Society of Thailand, Bangkok 10300, Thailand
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Insects 2023, 14(2), 155; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14020155
Submission received: 4 December 2022 / Revised: 14 January 2023 / Accepted: 1 February 2023 / Published: 3 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sterile Insect Technique and Mosquito Control)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

In several Asian and Latin American nations, severe dengue is the main cause of serious disease and death. Dengue viruses are transmitted to humans via the bite of an infected Aedes species. Personal protection measures may be an effective method of avoiding mosquito bites. Nowadays, consumers are increasingly interested in commercial repellent products containing plant-based ingredients because they are perceived as “safe” in comparison to long-established synthetic repellents. We tested a binary plant-based mixture formulation of Cananga odorata, Vetiveria zizanioides, and the crude extract of Andrographis paniculata on laboratory and field strains of Aedes aegypti using an excito-repellency test system. The results showed that a mixture of V. zizanioides and A. paniculata at a 1:4 ratio was better than DEET. These results could lead to the further development of a combination of V. zizanioides and A. paniculata as active ingredients in a repellent that could be tested in human trials.

Abstract

Each binary mixture formulation of Vetiveria zizanioides (L.) Nash (VZ) with Andrographis paniculata (Burm.f.) Wall. ex Nees (AP) or Cananga odorata (Lam.) Hook.f. & Thomson (CO) and AP with CO at 1:1, 1:2, 1:3, and 1:4 ratios (v:v) was investigated for behavioral responses on laboratory and field strains of Aedes aegypti. Irritant and repellent activities of each formulation were compared with N,N-diethyl-3-methylbenzamide (DEET) using an excito-repellency test system. The result demonstrated that the mixture of VZ:AP in all combination ratios was the most effective in inducing an irritancy response against the laboratory strain (56.57–73.33%). The highest percentage of escaped mosquitoes exposed to the mixture at a 1:4 ratio (73.33%) was significantly different from DEET (26.67%) (p < 0.05). Against the field strain, the strongest escape response of AP:CO at a 1:1 ratio in the contact trial (70.18%) was significantly different compared with DEET (38.33%) (p < 0.05). There was a weak non-contact escape pattern in all combinations of VZ:CO against the laboratory strains (6.67–31.67%). These findings could lead to the further development of VZ and AP as active ingredients in a repellent that could advance to human use trials.

1. Introduction

Many areas of the world are at risk from mosquito-borne diseases; in particular, the incidence of dengue has increased substantially worldwide in recent decades [1]. One model has estimated that there are 390 million dengue cases annually, with 70% of them in Asia [2]. Aedes aegypti, an anthropophagic daytime-biting mosquito, is the principal vector of dengue virus as well as other arboviruses [2,3]. Despite intensive efforts and various innovations to combat this species, control remains difficult, and they are highly refractory to common control measures. This has necessitated exploring methods to enhance personal protection to prevent blood-feeding and potential disease transmission.
The direct control of vectors is considered an efficient way to block the transmission cycle of pathogens, with the most common being the use of synthetic chemical insecticides [4]. Chemical compounds can protect humans from mosquito bites by either causing mortality (killing) or excito-repellency (avoidance behavior via contact irritancy and/or non-contact repellent) that interrupts or inhibits normal feeding behavior [5,6]. DEET (N,N-diethyl-3-methylbenzamide) is the standard repellent for several insects and arthropods [7]. Most commercial mosquito repellents are prepared using DEET, which may lead to health risks in the case of continuous application on exposed skin at high concentrations [8]. In addition to cost considerations, the use of insecticides carries risks associated with potential environmental contamination, reductions in non-target and beneficial organisms, and promotes the development of insecticide resistance in mosquito populations over time [9,10,11]. Therefore, it is desirable to investigate the use of natural compounds as bio-pesticides extracted from plants to protect humans from mosquito bites [4,12]. These natural product sources are generally considered safe from unwanted side effects and have become increasingly popular for protection against biting mosquitoes [12].
Several extracts and essential oils from botanical sources can repel Ae. aegypti mosquitoes, such as catnip, citronella, clove, eucalyptus, ginger, cinnamon, basil, kaffir lime, lemongrass, mountain pepper, weeping paperbark, orange, plai, vetiver, ylang-ylang, nutmeg, turmeric, and fah talai jone [13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23]. The repellent efficacy of essential oils can be improved by combining several essential oils from different plants, leading to a synergistic effect [24]. The synergistic use of essential oils derived from several plants has been reported to provide a higher repellent activity to Ae. aegypti than the individual essential oils separately [25,26]. A recent investigation studied the avoidance behavior of Culex quinquefasciatus Say to binary mixtures of essential oils of Vetiveria zizanioides or Cananga odorata with a crude extract of Andrographis paniculata using an excito-repellency (ER) test system; promising test results were obtained [27]. However, the irritancy and repellency responses of the botanical extract mixtures against Ae. aegypti have not been subjected to an ER assay.
Thus, the aim of this study was to use the ER test system to investigate the escape responses of medically important Ae. aegypti to binary mixtures of each of the essential oils of V. zizanioides or C. odorata with the crude extract of A. paniculata at different blending ratios. DEET was used as a positive control to compare the efficacy of each binary mixture formulation.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Test Mosquitoes

Laboratory and field strains of Aedes aegypti were used. A susceptible laboratory colony of Ae. Aegypti (USDA strain), originally obtained from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), has been maintained for at least 20 years at the Department of Entomology, Faculty of Agriculture, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand and is completely susceptible to all commonly used insecticides [17]. For the field strain, larvae and pupae were collected from Pu Teuy village, Sai Yok district, Kanchanaburi province, Thailand (14.3376268 N, 98.9817521 E). Both adult mosquito strains were provided with cotton pads soaked with 10% sucrose solution from the day of emergence. They were maintained in screened cages (30 cm × 30 cm × 30 cm) under uniformed climatic conditions of 25 ± 2 °C, 80 ± 10% relative humidity, and a 12:12 h (light:dark) cycle. Females were free-mated and permitted to feed on blood in an artificial membrane blood-feeding system [28] on the fourth day after emergence. Gravid females then laid their eggs within two days following blood feeding. A small plastic cup containing moist filter paper (10 cm in diameter) was provided in the cages as an oviposition container. The eggs in the oviposition dishes were initially dried (‘conditioned’) at room temperature for approximately 24–48 h. The eggs that had been affixed to the filter papers were immersed in fresh water in hatching trays. One to two days after hatching, approximately 250 larvae were transferred to individual plastic trays (20 × 30 × 5 cm) containing 1500 mL of tap water and provided with 5–6 fish granules. The pupae were transferred to emergence cups and placed in screened cages. Adults were provided with 10% sugar meal ad libitum until 12 h prior to the assay. All procedures were approved under the Animal Use Protocol entitled “Synergistic repellent and irritant effect of the binary mixture of ylang-ylang, fah talai jone, and vetiver oil against Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) (U1-09518-2564)” to Miss Amonrat Panthawong by the Kasetsart University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, Bangkok, Thailand.

2.2. Test Compounds

The essential oils of ylang-ylang, Cananga odorata (CO) (Batch No. 20010111-1), and vetiver, Vetiveria zizanioides (VZ) (Batch No. 200402491), and the crude extract (100% purity) of fah talai jone, Andrographis paniculata (AP) (Batch No. 19121204-1), used in this study were purchased from the Thai-China Flavours and Fragrances (TCFF) Industry Co., Ltd., Ayutthaya, Thailand. The essential oils were obtained from selected plant parts using a steam distillation method, and their chemical composition was analyzed based on gas chromatography and mass spectrometry. The CO essential oil (CO EO) was extracted from flowers, while the VZ essential oil (VZ EO) was from the roots. The main components of CO EO were β-caryophyllene and linalool [22], while in VZ EO, they were β-vetivone and khusimol [29]. The AP crude extract (AP CE) was obtained by maceration of A. paniculata leaves containing andrographolide and 14-deoxyandrographolide in ethanal [21]. Each test compound was prepared with absolute ethanol (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany) to obtain 2.5% (v/v). This concentration was selected based on other publications [17,21] reporting the highest mosquito-repellent potential. Binary mixture formulations were prepared of VZ EO with AP CE or CO EO and of AP CE with CO EO at ratios of 1:1, 1:2, 1:3, and 1:4 (v/v). The VZ EO was purchased from TCFF along with the main chemical profile document. We used the same batch of VZ EO for our experiments.

2.3. Paper Impregnation

Whatman No. 1 filter papers were cut into rectangles of size 14.7 cm × 17.5 cm. Separate papers were treated with each binary mixture formulation using a calibrated micropipette delivering 2.8 mL of solution. Untreated control papers were treated with absolute ethanol only. DEET (2.5% v/v) was used as a gold-standard repellent. The treated papers were placed on a plastic sheet and air-dried at room temperature for at least 1 h before use. Multiple papers in each formulation were discarded after being used once [17,21].

2.4. Behavioral Assay

The excito-repellency assay system has been described by Chareonviriyaphap et al. [30] and Roberts et al. [31]. Briefly, a set of 4 test chambers was used simultaneously to evaluate the different types of contact irritant and non-contact spatial repellents, consisting of 2 treatment chambers (either contact or non-contact) and 2 paired control chambers, respectively. The testing chamber is connected to the external receiving box for escape response observation. In the contact chamber, mosquitoes were allowed to make direct physical contact with the treated paper, whereas treated papers were placed behind a mesh screen preventing direct tarsal contact with test mosquitoes. To begin testing, 15 active female mosquitoes, non-blood fed and 3–5 days old, were introduced into each testing chamber using an entomological mouth aspirator. Mosquitoes were allowed to briefly (3 min) adjust to the environmental conditions inside the test chamber before the exit portal was opened, leading to the receiving box. The number of escaping mosquitoes was recorded every minute for 30 min. At the end of the exposure period, escaped and non-escaped (those remaining in the chamber) mosquitoes were transferred to individual containers and provided 10% sugar solution during the holding period. Knockdown response (moribund mosquitoes, unable to fly) was recorded immediately after 30 min, and final mortality was recorded after 24 h in both treatments and controls for escaped and non-escaped mosquitoes. Each binary mixture formulation was tested in 4 replicates (n = 60) during daylight hours between 08:00 and 16:30 h. The test chambers were carefully cleaned with 95% ethyl alcohol and allowed to dry for at least 24 h before beginning the next experiment.

2.5. Data Analysis

Abbott’s formula [32] was used to adjust the escape responses if the paired control escape number was between 5–20%. The number of knockdown and dead mosquitoes was used to calculate initial knockdown and final mortality responses. Using Kaplan–Meier survival analysis [31], the mean percentages of escape response and mortality for each test chamber and mixture formation were analyzed. As previously described, the design of the contact chamber offered the determination of a combined contact excitation (‘irritancy’) and non-contact repellency. To estimate the true irritancy, the escape percentage was therefore adjusted again by comparing the numbers of mosquitoes that successfully escaped in each paired contact and non-contact trial [19] using the following equation: (1 − [number of contacts in test × number of non-contact escapes/number of non-contacts in test × number of contact escapes]) × 100. This measurement, a reciprocal of the Henderson–Tilton (H–T) formula designed to measure the effects of toxic chemicals on populations, enables the adjustment of the ‘crude’ contact escape percentage to provide an estimate of the escape percentage due to contact irritancy to exclude those effects due to repellency [33]. Then, the adjusted contact escape divided by the pre-adjusted (combined effects) escape percentage was calculated, resulting in an estimation of the ‘percentage effect’ due to contact excitation alone. For computational purposes, escaped mosquitoes were designated as “dead”, while non-escaped mosquitoes were defined as “survivors”. Survival analysis was then used to compare the escape responses between contact and non-contact trials (using initial escape data). A log-rank method [34] was used to compare the patterns of escape behavior. The escape time (ET) in minutes for 25% (ET25), 50% (ET50), and 75% (ET75) of mosquitoes to escape was calculated for each formulation. The escape response data were analyzed using the SAS software version 9 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA). Statistical significance for all tests was tested at 5% (p < 0.05).

3. Results

The contact irritancy and non-contact repellency effects of binary mixtures at different blending ratios of VZ EO, AP CE, and CO EO compared with DEET on laboratory and field strains of Ae. aegypti are shown in Table 1 and Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3. The escape rates represent the probabilities of mosquitoes escaping from a chamber with a particular chemical or mixture of plant-based combinations. A strong escape pattern was observed with VZ EO:AP CE in the contact trial for all combinations (56–73%) in the laboratory strain as well as all combinations of AP CE:CO EO for all combinations (42–70%) of the field strain. The combination ratio of 1:4 produced the highest percentage of escaped mosquitoes of 73.33% for VZ EO:AP CE from the contact trial. Overall, AP CE:CO EO produced more robust escape responses than VZ EO:AP CE and VZ EO:CO EO in the contact and non-contact trials. With VZ EO:CO EO, there was a weak non-contact escape pattern in all combinations of the laboratory strains (6–31%).
After a ‘true contact irritancy’ adjustment, the percentage of contact escape response decreased, except the laboratory strain exhibited 0% escape in the ‘true’ contact response for AP CE:CO EO (1:4).
Multiple log-rank comparisons between any two combinations of exposure to repellent compounds in either contact or non-contact trials are shown in Table 2. For AP CE:CO EO, there were significant differences in escape responses when 1:1 was compared to the other combinations in the contact trials but not at 1:1 compared with the ratios of 1:2 and 1:3 in the non-contact trials. For VZ EO:AP CE, there were significant differences in the escape responses between combinations only for 1:1 compared to 1:3 in the non-contact trial of the laboratory strain. Against the laboratory strain, the irritant response due to all combination ratios of VZ EO:AP CE was not significantly different from DEET in non-contact trials (p > 0.05) but was significantly different in contact trials. For the field strain, all mixtures of VZ EO:AP CE were not significantly different from that elicited by DEET alone (p > 0.05), except for VZ EO:AP CE in the contact trial. Multiple log-rank comparisons between the contact and non-contact trials for each mixture were conducted (Table 3). Notably, the VZ EO:AP CE responses were all significantly different in the escape patterns for the Ae. aegypti laboratory strain in all paired comparisons between the contact and non-contact trials. For AP CE:CO EO, there were significant differences in the escape patterns in the paired comparisons between the contact and non-contact trials, except for the 1:2 combination.
The escape patterns from chambers treated with test compounds were defined based on the escape time for 25% (ET25), 50% (ET50), and 75% (ET75) of the test population to leave the treated chamber in 30 min. The ET25 laboratory and field strains in the contact trial had the most rapid response to VZ EO:AP CE for all combinations within 1–2 min. VZ EO:CO EO (1:2) produced delayed escape responses with E25 values in both laboratory (28 min) and field (22 min) strains. No response was observed for the ET75 value in both the contact and non-contact trials for the laboratory and field strains with all tested compounds. There was a faster escape response in the contact trial to all combinations compared to the similar non-contact trial. There were only ET50 values in the contact trial of VZ EO:AP CE for the laboratory strain and of VZ EO:CO EO and AP CE:CO EO in the field strain (Table 4).
Based on the Kaplan–Meier survival analysis, compared with other test condition, the strongest escape patterns were observed for laboratory and field strains exposed to AP CE:CO EO (1:1) in the contact trial. VZ EO:AP CE (1:4) had the highest escape pattern response (>70% in 10 min) for the laboratory strain in the contact trial, whereas the field strain’s escape response was less than 50% for all combinations. VZ EO:CO EO (1:4) produced an escape response of almost 70% for the field strain compared with less than 50% for the laboratory strain during the contact test.
Knockdown (KD) of escaped and non-escaped mosquitoes was observed during the exposure period (30 min). The KD percentage for the non-escaped field strain in the contact trials for AP CE:CO EO (1:1) was 27.50%. Likewise, there was a marked mortality percentage (27.50%) for the escaped field strain in the contact trials for AP CE:CO EO (1:1).

4. Discussion

The current study measured the irritant contact and non-contact repellent characteristics of binary mixtures of VZ EO with AP CE or CO EO, and of AP CE with CO EO for ratios of 1:1, 1:2, 1:3, and 1:4 (v:v) against Ae. aegypti using the excito-repellency test system. The results showed that the binary mixture of VZ EO:AP CE in all proportions was the most effective in inducing an irritancy response against the laboratory strain (68–73% escape) and was significantly higher than DEET (26% escape). Similar to the previous study, Boonyuan et al. [27] reported that the greatest contact irritant of VZ EO:AP CE at a ratio of 1:1 (v:v) against both laboratory and field strains of Cx. Quinquefasciatus (96.67% escape) was significantly greater than DEET (88.67% escape). This difference percentage of escape may depend on the mosquitoes tested. Culex mosquitoes are more sensitive to repellents than Aedes and Anopheles mosquitoes, which are repellent-tolerant species [7]. DEET showed >90% repellent against Ae. aegypti at 19 and 25% concentrations [7], while 2.5% DEET was used in this study. For the field strain, a strong escape response was observed for AP CE:CO EO for all proportions in the contact trial (42–70% escape). However, the highest percentage of escaped mosquitoes exposed to VZ EO:AP CE was at a ratio of 1:4 (73.33%), while for AP CE:CO EO, it was at a 1:1 ratio (70.18%). This difference could have originated from the different types of the synergistic chemical composition of each essential oil combination.
VZ EO consists of a complex mixture of more than 200 compounds [35]. The major components of VZ EO are β-vetivone, khusimol, α-vetivone, vitiveryl acetat, vetiverol, vitivone, and terpenes [27,36]. VZ EO has been reported to repel several insects, such as termites, mosquitoes, weevils, and beetles [12,37,38]. Recently, Nararak et al. [35] demonstrated that VZ EO and two of their constituents (valencene and vetiverol) had potential as active ingredients for repelling Ae. Aegypti. Furthermore, another study showed that the combination of vetiver (10%), citronella (20%), and hairy basil (10%) oils in nanoemulsion promoted a longer protection time (>3 h) against Ae. aegypti [39]. For AP CE, Sukkanon et al. [21] showed that andrographolide and 14-deoxyandrographolide were the major diterpenoids found in A. paniculata plants based on high-performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. They also found that AP CE exhibited strong non-contact repellency against Ae. aegypti (72% escape). Edwin et al. [40] reported that andrographolide at a concentration of 12 ppm exhibited an effective repellency percentage of >90% with a protection time of 15–210 min compared to the Ae. aegypti control group. The results of the current study also indicated that the laboratory strain of Ae. aegypti produced the lowest response to all combinations of VZ EO:CO EO in the non-contact trail. Consistent with the previous research, 10% CO EO provides the strongest value against Ae. aegypti, with only 66% repellency [41]. However, Sukkanon et al. [22] reported that CO EO at 2.5% concentration caused Ae. aegypti to escape at a rate of 39% in the non-contact repellency trial and 59% in the contact irritancy trial. The use of CO EO alone may be more effective in repelling Ae. aegypti than the combination with VZ EO. The repellent action of the plant extracts tested varied depending on the plant part, the solvent used in extraction, and the dose [42].
The estimation of escape time indicated that VZ EO:AP CE had the strongest excitation and repellency actions with both the laboratory and field strains of Ae. aegypti in the contact trial. Most plant essential oils are volatile and act on mosquitoes in the volatile phase. Therefore, their effectiveness and protection time are time-limited [38,43]. Improved repellency of plant-derived topical repellents has been shown after formulation with some bases or fixative materials, such as liquid paraffin, vanillin, and salicyluric acid [44,45,46,47]. According to Chareonviriyaphap et al. [48], three laboratory strains utilized in this study had been continuously colonized for 15–20 years and appeared to have lost some of their natural behavioral avoidance response to deltamethrin. Two colonized populations of Anopheles albimanus Wiedemann from Panama and El Salvador also exhibited suppressed avoidance responses. Both populations had been maintained in laboratories for more than two decades and exhibited significantly less avoidance of insecticide exposure than populations captured in the wild. A long-term (15 years) colonized strain of Anopheles dirus Peyton and Harrison exhibited a lower escape response to deltamethrin than other strains from Thailand [49]. Before extrapolating results to “normal” mosquito behavior in the wild, it is important to think carefully about how to use mosquito populations that have been there for a long time.
The prevention and control of most vector-borne diseases (those lacking effective vaccines, for example) remain dependent on various vector control strategies to decrease the transmission risk. In many instances, this requires the use of chemical insecticides as outdoor space spray and indoor residual spray applications and insecticide-treated bed nets to prevent adult mosquito blood feeding [5,50,51]. After decades of insecticide exposure, the development of resistance by mosquitoes to synthetic compounds has reduced the effectiveness of traditional chemical-based prevention and control methods [10,52,53,54]. For this reason, the potential use of plant-derived products as a source of various extracts and essential oils as natural repellents is an attractive option to replace or supplement synthetic compounds for the control of vectors and prevention of disease transmission.
Several plant-based essential oils have been evaluated for their insect-repellent activity for protection against mosquitoes and other arthropod pests in Thailand. These have included Ocimum spp. [46,55], Nepeta cataria [14], Citrus hystrix [56], Melaleuca leucadendron, Litsea cubeba, and Litsea salicifolia [13], Citrus aurantium, Cinnamomum verum, Cymbopogon winterianus, Syzygium aromaticum [15], V. zizanioides [12,17], C. odorata [57,58], and A. paniculata [21]. Notably, several research studies have demonstrated that mixtures of essential oils provide a higher repellency against Ae. aegypti than a single essential oil [59,60,61], probably by increasing the effectiveness of the number of chemicals in the mixture [25,26,61] and synergism between the constituent compounds [27]. From these data, essential oil mixtures could be a cheaper alternative for human populations and promising tools such as mosquito repellents [61].

5. Conclusions

In summary, VZ EO:AP CE at a 1:4 ratio in the contact trial displayed the significantly strongest escape patterns in the laboratory strain compared to the other test conditions, while AP CE:CO EO at a 1:1 ratio demonstrated strong irritant activity against the field strain. The laboratory strain produced the lowest response to the mixture of VZ EO:CO EO, especially in the non-contact trial. However, the promising attributes of essential oils of V. zizanioides and C. odorata and of the crude extract of A. paniculata are that they are derived from natural sources and are relatively less toxic compared to synthetic repellents. Therefore, more work is needed to optimize these botanicals as potential commercial mosquito repellents, not only for topical use but for possible inclusion in other control tools.

Author Contributions

All authors have contributed significantly to this study. A.P. and T.C. conceived and designed the experiment. A.P., P.J. and J.N. performed the experiment. A.P. and C.S. analyzed the data. A.P. and J.N. wrote the manuscript. T.C. consulted, read, corrected, and approved the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was financially supported by the Kasetsart University Research and Development Institute (KURDI), Bangkok, Thailand (Grant#FF (KU) 14.64).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All relevant data are included in the article.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge KURDI for financial support. We are grateful to the Department of Entomology, Faculty of Agriculture, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, for providing the laboratory space and other resources to conduct this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. World Health Organization. Dengue and Severe Dengue. Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/vector-borne-diseases (accessed on 13 June 2022).
  2. Bhatt, S.; Gething, P.W.; Brady, O.J.; Messina, J.P.; Farlow, A.W.; Moyes, C.L.; Drake, J.M.; Brownstein, J.S.; Hoen, A.G.; Sankoh, O.; et al. The global distribution and burden of dengue. Nature 2013, 496, 504–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Huynh, T.T.T.; Minakawa, N. A comparative study of dengue virus vectors in major parks and adjacent residential areas in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2022, 16, e0010119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Mehlhorn, H.; Wu, Z. Treatment of human parasitosis in traditional Chinese medicine. In Parasitology Research Monographs; Ye, B., Ed.; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin, Germany, 2013; Volume 6. [Google Scholar]
  5. Roberts, D.R.; Andre, R.G. Insecticide resistance issues in vector-borne disease control. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 1994, 50, 21–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Thanispong, K.; Achee, N.L.; Bangs, M.J.; Grieco, J.P.; Suwonkerd, W.; Prabaripai, A.; Chareonviriyaphap, T. Irritancy and repellency behavioral responses of three strains of Aedes aegypti exposed to DDT and α-cypermethrin. J. Med. Entomol. 2009, 46, 1407–1414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Lupi, E.; Hatz, C.; Schlagenhauf, P. The efficacy of repellents against Aedes, Anopheles, Culex and Ixodes spp.—A literature review. Travel Med. Infect. Dis. 2013, 6, 374–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Leal, W.S. The enigmatic reception of DEET—The gold standard of insect repellents. Curr. Opin. Insect. Sci. 2014, 6, 93–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Brown, M.; Hebert, A.A. Insect repellents: An overview. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 1997, 36, 243–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Chareonviriyaphap, T.; Bangs, M.J.; Suwonkerd, W.; Kongmee, M.; Corbel, V.; Ngoen-Klan, R. Review of insecticide resistance and behavioral avoidance of vectors of human diseases in Thailand. Parasit. Vectors 2013, 6, 280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Qiu, H.; Jun, H.W.; McCall, J. Pharmacokinetics, formulation, and safety of insect repellent N, N-diethyl-3-methylbenzamide (DEET): A review. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 1998, 14, 12–27. [Google Scholar]
  12. Nararak, J.; Sathantriphop, S.; Chauhan, K.; Tantakom, S.; Eiden, A.L.; Chareonviriyaphap, T. Avoidance behavior to essential oils by Anopheles minimus, a malaria vector in Thailand. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 2016, 32, 34–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Noosidum, A.; Prabaripai, A.; Chareonviriyaphap, T.; Chandrapatya, A. Excito-repellency properties of essential oils from Melaleuca leucadendron L., Litsea cubeba (Lour.) Persoon, and Litsea salicifolia (Nees) on Aedes aegypti (L.) mosquitoes. J. Vector Ecol. 2008, 33, 305–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Polsomboon, S.; Grieco, J.P.; Achee, N.L.; Chauhan, K.R.; Tanasinchayakul, S.; Pothikasikorn, J.; Chareonviriyaphap, T. Behavioral responses of catnip (Nepeta cataria) by two species of mosquitoes, Aedes aegypti and Anopheles harrisoni, in Thailand. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 2008, 24, 513–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Suwansirisilp, K.; Visetson, S.; Prabaripai, A.; Tanasinchayakul, S.; Grieco, J.P.; Bangs, M.J.; Chareonviriyaphap, T. Behavioral responses of Aedes aegypti and Culex quinquefasciatus (Diptera: Culicidae) to four essential oils in Thailand. J. Pest Sci. 2013, 86, 309–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Boonyuan, W.; Grieco, J.P.; Bangs, M.J.; Prabaripai, A.; Tantakom, S.; Chareonviriyaphap, T. Excito-repellency of essential oils against an Aedes aegypti (L.) field population in Thailand. J. Vector Ecol. 2014, 39, 112–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sathantriphop, S.; White, S.A.; Achee, N.L.; Sanguanpong, U.; Chareonviriyaphap, T. Behavioral responses of Aedes aegypti, Aedes albopictus, Culex quinquefasciatus, and Anopheles minimus against various synthetic and natural repellent compounds. J. Vector Ecol. 2014, 39, 328–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Sathantriphop, S.; Thanispong, K.; Sanguanpong, U.; Achee, N.L.; Bangs, M.J.; Chareonviriyaphap, T. Comparative behavioral responses of pyrethroid-susceptible and -resistant Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) populations to citronella and eucalyptus oils. J. Med. Entomol. 2014, 51, 1182–1191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sathantriphop, S.; Kongmee, M.; Tainchum, K.; Suwansirisilp, K.; Sanguanpong, U.; Bangs, M.J.; Chareonviriyaphap, T. Comparison of field and laboratory-based tests for behavioral response of Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) to Repellents. J. Econ. Entomol. 2015, 108, 2770–2778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Nararak, J.; Sathantriphop, S.; Kongmee, M.; Bangs, M.J.; Chareonviriyaphap, T. Excito-repellency of Citrus hystrix DC leaf and peel essential oils against Aedes aegypti and Anopheles minimus (Diptera: Culicidae), vectors of human pathogens. J. Med. Entomol. 2017, 54, 178–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Sukkanon, C.; Karpkird, T.; Saeung, M.; Leepasert, T.; Panthawong, A.; Suwonkerd, W.; Bangs, M.J.; Chareonviriyaphap, T. Excito-repellency activity of Andrographis paniculata (Lamiales: Acanthaceae) against colonized mosquitoes. J. Med. Entomol. 2020, 57, 192–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Sukkanon, C.; Nararak, J.; Bangs, M.J.; Chareonviriyaphap, T. Cananga odorata (Magnoliales: Annonaceae) essential oil produces significant avoidance behavior in mosquitoes. J. Med. Entomol. 2022, 59, 291–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Bhoopong, P.; Chareonviriyaphap, T.; Sukkanon, C. Excito-repellency of Myristica fragrans Houtt. and Curcuma longa L. extracts from Southern Thailand against Aedes aegypti (L.). PeerJ 2022, 10, e13357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Lee, M.Y. Essential oils as repellents against arthropods. BioMed Res. Int. 2018, 1, 6860271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kim, S.I.; Yoon, J.S.; Baeck, S.J.; Lee, S.H.; Ahn, Y.J.; Kwon, H.W. Toxicity and synergic repellency of plant essential oil mixtures with vanillin against Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae). J. Med. Entomol. 2012, 49, 876–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Noosidum, A.; Chareonviriyaphap, T.; Chandrapatya, A. Synergistic repellent and irritant effect of combined essential oils on Aedes aegypti (L.) mosquitoes. J. Vector Ecol. 2014, 39, 298–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Boonyuan, W.; Ahebwa, A.; Nararak, J.; Sathantriphop, S.; Chareonviriyaphap, T. Enhanced Excito-repellency of binary mixtures of plant-based mosquito repellents against Culex quinquefasciatus Say (Diptera: Culicidae), a night biting mosquito species. J. Med. Entomol. 2022, 59, 891–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Phasomkusolsil, S.; Tawong, J.; Monkanna, N.; Pantuwatana, K.; Damdangdee, N.; Khongtak, W.; Kertmanee, Y.; Evans, B.P.; Schuster, A.L. Maintenance of mosquito vectors: Effects of blood source on feeding, survival, fecundity, and egg hatching rates. J. Vector Ecol. 2013, 38, 38–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Jain, S.C.; Nowicki, S.; Eisner, T.; Meinwald, J. Insect repellents from vetiver oil: I. zizanal and epizizanal. Tetrahedron Lett. 1982, 23, 4639–4642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Chareonviriyaphap, T.; Rongnoparut, P.; Juntarumporn, P. Selection for pyrethroid resistance in a colony of Anopheles minimus species A, a malaria vector in Thailand. J. Vector Ecol. 2002, 27, 222–229. [Google Scholar]
  31. Roberts, D.R.; Chareonviriyaphap, T.; Harlan, H.H.; Hshieh, P. Methods of testing and analyzing excito-repellency responses of malaria vectors to insecticides. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 1997, 13, 13–17. [Google Scholar]
  32. Abbott, W.S. A method of computing the effectiveness of an insecticide. J. Econ. Entomol. 1925, 18, 265–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Henderson, C.F.; Tilton, E.W. Tests with acaricides against the brown wheat mite. J. Econ. Entomol. 1955, 48, 157–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Mantel, N.; Haenszel, W. Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 1959, 22, 719–748. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  35. Nararak, J.; Di Giorgio, C.; Thanispong, K.; Sukkanon, C.; Sanguanpong, U.; Mahiou-Leddet, V.; Ollivierc, E.; Chareonviriyaphap, T.; Manguin, S. Behavioral avoidance and biological safety of vetiver oil and its constituents against Aedes aegypti (L.), Aedes albopictus (Skuse) and Culex quinquefasciatus (Say). CIRS 2022, 2, 100044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. (TCFF) Thai-China Flavours and Fragrances Industry Co. Ltd. Vetiver oil. Information Sheet; Code. 20033 S-QC-026 Rev. 02/2013; TCFF: Phra Nakhon Si Ayutthaya, Thailand, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  37. Sujatha, S. Essential oil and its insecticidal activity of medicinal aromatic plant Vetiveria zizanioides (L.) against the red flour beetle Tribolium castaneum (Herbst). Asian J. Agric. Sci. 2010, 2, 84–88. [Google Scholar]
  38. Zhu, B.C.; Henderson, G.; Chen, F.; Maistrello, L.; Laine, R.A. Nootkatone is a repellent for Formosan subterranean termite (Coptotermes formosanus). J. Chem. Ecol. 2001, 27, 523–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Nuchuchua, O.; Sakulku, U.; Uawongyart, N.; Puttipipatkhachorn, S.; Soottitantawat, A.; Ruktanonchai, U. In vitro characterization and mosquito (Aedes aegypti) repellent activity of essential-oils-loaded nanoemulsions. AAPS PharmSciTech 2009, 10, 1234–1242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Edwin, E.S.; Vasantha-Srinivasan, P.; Senthil-Nathan, S.; Thanigaivel, A.; Ponsankar, A.; Pradeepa, V.; Selin-Rani, S.; Kalaivani, K.; Hunter, W.B.; Abdel-Megeed, A.; et al. Anti-dengue efficacy of bioactive andrographolide from Andrographis paniculate (Lamiales: Acanthaceae) against the primary dengue vector Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae). Acta Trop. 2016, 163, 167–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Soonwera, M. Efficacy of essential oil from Cananga odorata (Lamk.) Hook.f. & Thomson (Annonaceae) against three mosquito species Aedes aegypti (L.), Anopheles dirus (Peyton and Harrison), and Culex quinquefasciatus (Say). Parasitol. Res. 2015, 12, 4531–4543. [Google Scholar]
  42. Bream, A.S.; El-Sheikh, T.M.; Fouda, M.A.; Hassan, M.I. Larvicidal and repellent activity of extracts derived from aquatic plant Echinochloa stagninum against Culex pipiens. Tunis. J. Plant Prot. 2010, 5, 107–123. [Google Scholar]
  43. Misni, N.; Sulaiman, S.; Othman, H.; Omar, B. Repellency of essential oil of Piper aduncum against Aedes albopicctus in the laboratory. J. Am. Mosq. Contr. Assoc. 2009, 25, 442–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Blackwell, A.; Stuart, A.E.; Estambale, B.B. The repellent and antifeedant activity of Myrica Gale oil against Aedes aegypti mosquitoes and its enhancement by the addition of salicyluric acid. J. R. Coll. Physicians Edinb. 2003, 33, 209. [Google Scholar]
  45. Oyedele, A.O.; Gbolade, A.A.; Sosan, M.B.; Adewoyin, F.B.; Soyelu, O.L.; Orafidiya, O.O. Formulation of an effective mosquito-repellent topical product from lemongrass oil. Phytomedicine 2002, 9, 259–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Tawatsin, A.; Wratten, S.D.; Scott, R.R.; Thavara, U.; Techadamrongsin, Y. Repellency of volatile oils from plants against mosquito vectors. J. Vector Ecol. 2001, 26, 76–82. [Google Scholar]
  47. Vatandoost, H.; Vaziri, V.M. Larvicidal activity of a neem tree extract [Neemarin] against mosquito larvae in the Islamic Republic of Iran. East. Mediterr. Health J. 2004, 10, 573–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Chareonviriyaphap, T.; Roberts, D.R.; Andre, R.G.; Harlan, H.J.; Manguin, S.; Bangs, M.J. Pesticide avoidance behavior in Anopheles albimanus, a malaria vector of Central and South America. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 1997, 13, 171–183. [Google Scholar]
  49. Chareonviriyaphap, T.; Prabaripai, A.; Bangs, M.J. Excito-repellency of deltamethrin on the malaria vectors, Anopheles minimus, Anopheles dirus, Anopheles swadiwongporni, and Anopheles maculatus in Thailand. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 2004, 20, 45–54. [Google Scholar]
  50. Grieco, J.P.; Achee, N.L.; Chareonviriyaphap, T.; Suwonkerd, W.; Chauhan, K.; Sardelis, M.R.; Roberts, D.R. A new classification system for the actions of IRS chemicals traditionally used for malaria control. PLoS ONE 2007, 2, e716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Reiter, P.; Gubler, D.J. Surveillance and control of urban dengue vectors. In Dengue and Dengue Hemorrhagic Fever; Gubler, D.J., Kuno, G., Eds.; CAB International: New York, NY, USA, 1997; pp. 425–426. [Google Scholar]
  52. Chuaycharoensuk, T.; Juntarajumnong, W.; Boonyuan, W.; Bangs, M.J.; Akratanakul, P.; Thammapalo, S.; Jirakanjanakit, N.; Tanasinchayakul, S.; Chareonviriyaphap, T. Frequency of pyrethroid resistance in Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) in Thailand. J. Vector Ecol. 2011, 36, 204–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Corbel, V.; N’Guessan, R. Distribution, mechanisms, impact and management of insecticide resistance in malaria vectors: A pragmatic review. In Anopheles Mosquitoes-New Insights into Malaria Vectors; Manguin, S., Ed.; IntechOpen: Rijeka, Croatia, 2013; pp. 579–633. [Google Scholar]
  54. Thanispong, K.; Sathantriphop, S.; Chareonviriyaphap, T. Insecticide resistance of Aedes aegypti and Culex quinquefasciatus in Thailand. J. Pestic. Sci. 2008, 33, 351–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Chokechaijaroenporn, O.; Bunyapraphatsara, N.; Kongchuensin, S. Mosquito repellent activities of ocimum volatile oils. Phytomedicine 1994, 1, 135–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Thavara, U.; Tawatsin, A.; Bhakdeenuan, P.; Wongsinkongman, P.; Boonruad, T.; Bansiddhi, J.; Chavalittumrong, P.; Komalamisra, N.; Siriyasatien, P.; Mulla, M.S. Repellent activity of essential oils against cockroaches (Dictyoptera: Blattidae, Blattellidae, and Blaberidae) in Thailand. Southeast Asian J. Trop. Med. Public Health 2007, 38, 663–673. [Google Scholar]
  57. Phasomkusolsil, S.; Soonwera, M. The effects of herbal essential oils on the oviposition-deterrent and ovicidal activities of Aedes aegypti (Linn.), Anopheles dirus (Peyton and Harrison) and Culex quinquefasciatus (Say). Trop. Biomed. 2012, 29, 138–150. [Google Scholar]
  58. Soonwera, M.; Phasomkusolsil, S. Mosquito repellent from Thai essential oils against dengue fever mosquito (Aedes aegypti) and filarial mosquito vector (Culex quinquefasciatus Say). Afr. J. Microbiol. Res. 2014, 8, 1819–1824. [Google Scholar]
  59. Isman, M.B.; Grieneisen, M.L. Botanical insecticide research: Many publications, limited useful data. Trends Plant Sci. 2014, 19, 140–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Manh, H.D.; Tuyet, O.T. Larvicidal and repellent activity of Mentha arvensis L. essential oil against Aedes aegypti. Insects 2020, 11, 198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Rosas, D.A.; Benitez, C.S.; Esteban, S.C. Repellent and adulticidal effect of essential oils mixtures on Aedes aegypti females. Int. J. Trop. Insect Sci. 2021, 42, 1885–1892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Insects 14 00155 g001 550
Figure 1. Analysis of survival for Aedes aegypti strains in treated non-contact and contact ER tests ((A) laboratory strain, (B) field strain). Escape responses were noted each minute for 30 min exposure to different binary mixture formulations of 2.5% AP CE:2.5% CO EO. Paired control escape responses not shown.
Figure 1. Analysis of survival for Aedes aegypti strains in treated non-contact and contact ER tests ((A) laboratory strain, (B) field strain). Escape responses were noted each minute for 30 min exposure to different binary mixture formulations of 2.5% AP CE:2.5% CO EO. Paired control escape responses not shown.
Insects 14 00155 g001
Insects 14 00155 g002 550
Figure 2. Analysis of survival for Aedes aegypti strains in treated non-contact and contact ER tests ((A) laboratory strain, (B) field strain). Escape responses were noted each minute for 30 min exposure to different binary mixture formulations of 2.5% VZ EO:2.5% AP CE. Paired control escape responses not shown.
Figure 2. Analysis of survival for Aedes aegypti strains in treated non-contact and contact ER tests ((A) laboratory strain, (B) field strain). Escape responses were noted each minute for 30 min exposure to different binary mixture formulations of 2.5% VZ EO:2.5% AP CE. Paired control escape responses not shown.
Insects 14 00155 g002
Insects 14 00155 g003 550
Figure 3. Analysis of survival for Aedes aegypti strains in treated non-contact and contact ER tests ((A) laboratory strain, (B) field strain). Escape responses were noted each minute for 30 min exposure to different binary mixture formulations of 2.5% VZ EO:2.5% CO EO. Paired control escape responses not shown.
Figure 3. Analysis of survival for Aedes aegypti strains in treated non-contact and contact ER tests ((A) laboratory strain, (B) field strain). Escape responses were noted each minute for 30 min exposure to different binary mixture formulations of 2.5% VZ EO:2.5% CO EO. Paired control escape responses not shown.
Insects 14 00155 g003
Table
Table 1. Avoidance response of Aedes aegypti exposed to each binary mixture of AP CE:CO EO, VZ EO:AP CE, and VZ EO:CO EO at different blending ratios and DEET in contact and non-contact trials.
Table 1. Avoidance response of Aedes aegypti exposed to each binary mixture of AP CE:CO EO, VZ EO:AP CE, and VZ EO:CO EO at different blending ratios and DEET in contact and non-contact trials.
RepellentsER AssayAedes aegypti (Lab Strain) Aedes aegypti (Field Strain)
Treatment ControlTreatment Control
N%ESC a%ESC b,cN%ESCN%ESC a%ESC b,cN%ESC
DEETC6026.6724.14 (0)603.336038.3337.28 (6.67)601.67
NC6031.6730.51601.676031.6729.32603.33
AP CE:CO EO (1:1)C6165.5765.00 (40.98)611.645770.1869.17 (38.43)613.28
NC6124.5924.596006331.7529.47623.23
AP CE:CO EO (1:2)C6036.6735.61 (1.07)611.645959.3258.63 (9.32)601.67
NC5935.5935.596006250.0049.15601.67
AP CE:CO EO (1:3)C6031.6729.32 (20.00)603.336165.5764.38 (35.57)603.33
NC6011.678.63603.336030.0027.59603.33
AP CE:CO EO (1:4)C6030.0027.59 (0)603.336042.3740.42 (19.04)603.28
NC6046.6743.86605.006023.3320.69603.33
VZ EO:AP CE (1:1)C6068.3367.79 (46.67)601.676048.3346.55 (18.33)603.33
NC6021.6718.97603.336030.0027.59603.33
VZ EO:AP CE (1:2)C6056.5755.83 (25.00)601.676137.7035.55 (12.70)603.33
NC6031.6730.51601.676025.0022.42603.33
VZ EO:AP CE (1:3)C6068.3368.33 (30.00)6005937.2935.13 (12.29)603.33
NC6038.3338.336006025.0023.73601.67
VZ EO:AP CE (1:4)C6073.3372.41 (35.00)603.336144.2642.34 (25.62)603.33
NC6038.3337.28601.675918.6415.84603.33
VZ EO:CO EO (1:1)C6035.0035.00 (28.33)6006038.3338.33 (18.33)600
NC606.676.676006020.0017.24 603.33
VZ EO:CO EO (1:2)C6025.0025.00 (10.25)6006038.3337.28 (3.33)601.67
NC6114.7514.756006035.0032.76603.33
VZ EO:CO EO (1:3)C6035.0032.76 (28.33)603.336066.6765.52 (30.00)603.33
NC606.676.676006036.6734.49603.33
VZ EO:CO EO (1:4)C6046.6746.67 (15.00)6006051.6750.85 (30.00)601.67
NC6031.6731.676006021.6720.34601.67
AP CE, Andrographis paniculata crude extract; CO EO, Cananga odorata essential oil; VZ EO, Vetiveria zizanioides essential oil; Esc, escaped mosquitoes; N, number of tested mosquitoes; C, contact; NC, non-contact. a Percent escape response before adjustment with paired control response. b Adjusted escape rate based on paired control response using Abbott’s formula. c Adjusted contact escape percent based on paired non-contact escape using Henderson–Tilton’s formula.
Table
Table 2. Log-rank comparisons of escape responses between each binary mixture formulation at different blending ratios and DEET against each strain of Aedes aegypti in contact and non-contact trials.
Table 2. Log-rank comparisons of escape responses between each binary mixture formulation at different blending ratios and DEET against each strain of Aedes aegypti in contact and non-contact trials.
Plant ExtractBlending Ratiop-Value
Aedes aegypti (Lab Strain)Aedes aegypti (Field Strain)
ContactNon-ContactContactNon-Contact
AP CE:CO EO1:1 vs. 1:20.0006 *0.19430.05080.0468 *
1:1 vs. 1:30.0001 *0.06590.17840.7732
1:1 vs. 1:4<0.0001 *0.0076 *0.0024 *0.3069
1:2 vs. 1:30.62040.0021 *0.48540.0209 *
1:2 vs. 1:40.45010.15000.18580.0029 *
1:3 vs. 1:40.8103<0.0001 *0.0474 *0.4469
1:1 vs. DEET<0.0001 *0.3310<0.0001 *0.9017
1:2 vs. DEET0.28180.76180.0040 *0.0707
1:3 vs. DEET0.56460.0064 *0.0004 *0.7202
1:4 vs. DEET0.71810.08740.11670.2688
VZ EO:AP CE1:1 vs. 1:20.18170.24140.23500.4681
1:1 vs. 1:30.99850.0386 *0.27440.5532
1:1 vs. 1:40.58370.05810.66560.1402
1:2 vs. 1:30.17240.31950.94210.9118
1:2 vs. 1:40.06350.46350.43950.4340
1:3 vs. 1:40.63050.75810.49440.3800
1:1 vs. DEET<0.0001 *0.19240.0242 *0.8452
1:2 vs. DEET0.0005 *0.84420.26220.3634
1:3 vs. DEET<0.0001 *0.46460.23780.4246
1:4 vs. DEET<0.0001 *0.61200.06410.0916
VZ EO:CO EO1:1 vs. 1:20.15610.14720.72620.0726
1:1 vs. 1:30.95490.99520.0014 *0.0523
1:1 vs. 1:40.19890.0006 *0.12300.8425
1:2 vs. 1:30.18240.14230.0002 *0.9147
1:2 vs. 1:40.0044 *0.0410 *0.0484 *0.1046
1:3 vs. 1:40.16220.0006 *0.10420.0783
1:1 vs. DEET0.33550.0005 *0.29410.1630
1:2 vs. DEET0.69930.0342 *0.39750.6757
1:3 vs. DEET0.36780.0005 *<0.0001 *0.5911
1:4 vs. DEET0.0267 *0.89080.0148 *0.2241
* Indicates significantly different at p < 0.05; AP CE, Andrographis paniculata crude extract; CO EO, Cananga odorata essential oil; VZ EO, Vetiveria zizanioides essential oil.
Table
Table 3. Log-rank comparisons of escape responses between contact and non-contact trials.
Table 3. Log-rank comparisons of escape responses between contact and non-contact trials.
Plant ExtractBlending RatioAedes aegypti
Lab StrainField Strain
AP CE:CO EO1:1<0.0001 *<0.0001 *
1:20.92680.4452
1:30.0072 *0.0001 *
1:40.0450 *0.0215 *
VZ EO:AP CE1:1<0.0001 *0.0364 *
1:20.0017 *0.0961
1:30.0006 *0.1262
1:4<0.0001 *0.0016 *
VZ EO:CO EO1:10.0002 *0.0379 *
1:20.22650.9940
1:30.0002 *0.0011 *
1:40.07300.0008 *
* Indicates significantly different at p < 0.05; AP CE, Andrographis paniculata crude extract; CO EO, Cananga odorata essential oil; VZ EO, Vetiveria zizanioides essential oil.
Table
Table 4. Estimated escape time in minutes for 25% (ET25) and 50% (ET50) of mosquitoes to exit contact and non-contact test chambers exposed to test compounds.
Table 4. Estimated escape time in minutes for 25% (ET25) and 50% (ET50) of mosquitoes to exit contact and non-contact test chambers exposed to test compounds.
CompoundTestRatioAe. aegypti (Lab Strain)Ae. aegypti (Field Strain)
ET25ET50ET25ET50
AP CE:CO EOContact1:11317
1:215-626
1:313-523
1:427-2-
Non-contact1:1--15-
1:211-529
1:3--27-
1:42---
VZ EO:AP CEContact1:1141-
1:2172-
1:3131-
1:4142-
Non-contact1:1--6-
1:213-28-
1:34-17-
1:410---
VZ EO:CO EOContact1:18-8-
1:228-22-
1:315-18
1:44-225
Non-contact1:1----
1:2--3-
1:3--6-
1:414---
DEETContact 18-3-
Non-contact 5-10-
AP CE, Andrographis paniculata crude extract; CO EO, Cananga odorata essential oil; VZ EO, Vetiveria zizanioides essential oil.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Panthawong, A.; Nararak, J.; Jhaiaun, P.; Sukkanon, C.; Chareonviriyaphap, T. Synergistic Behavioral Response Effect of Mixtures of Andrographis paniculata, Cananga odorata, and Vetiveria zizanioides against Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae). Insects 2023, 14, 155. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14020155

AMA Style

Panthawong A, Nararak J, Jhaiaun P, Sukkanon C, Chareonviriyaphap T. Synergistic Behavioral Response Effect of Mixtures of Andrographis paniculata, Cananga odorata, and Vetiveria zizanioides against Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae). Insects. 2023; 14(2):155. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14020155

Chicago/Turabian Style

Panthawong, Amonrat, Jirod Nararak, Pairpailin Jhaiaun, Chutipong Sukkanon, and Theeraphap Chareonviriyaphap. 2023. "Synergistic Behavioral Response Effect of Mixtures of Andrographis paniculata, Cananga odorata, and Vetiveria zizanioides against Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae)" Insects 14, no. 2: 155. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14020155

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop